Date of Filing:21/03/2011

        Date of Order:13/05/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  13^th DAY OF MAY 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 566 OF 2011

Dr. M. Kala,

HOD & Professor,

Government Dental College,

R/at: No.1106, 1^st Sector,

HSR Layout,

BANGALORE-71.                                                                  ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) The Chairman,

B.W.S.S.B., Cauvery Bhavan,

Bangalore.

(2) The Assistant Executive Engineer,

No.3, South-East, W/s Sanitary Sub Division,

BWSSB, 17^th Main, 3^rd Block, Koramangala,

Bangalore-34.                                                                  …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to collect only arrears in respect of sanitary charges from 2004 till June-2010 at the rates of domestic connection, are necessary:-

          The complainant had requested the sanitary connection and water connection from the opposite parties for her residence at No.1106, Sector-1, HSR Layout, Bangalore, to which the opposite party had approved and asked the complainant to remit Rs.1,02,500/- for the water supply and sanitary connection by letter dated: 03.09.2004.  As she did not require the water supply connection, but only the sanitary connection, she explained it to the opposite parties who wanted a written request from her.  Accordingly a request letter was sent to the opposite parties on 15.09.2004.  The opposite parties approved her request for sanitary connection and asked her to remit the revised amount the Prorata Sanitary Charges of Rs.48,800/-, Inspection Charges of Rs.2,500/-, Point charges of Rs.2,400/-, in all Rs.53,700/-.  The said amount was remitted to the opposite parties on 21.09.2004 which was accepted by them have acknowledged.  On 15.05.2010 the sanitary line was blocked without any prior intimation.  Immediately she informed it to the concerned officer of the opposite parties by complaint dated: 19.05.2010.  Between 2004 and 2010 the opposite parties have not collected any sanitary charges and the complainant is agreeable to pay the Prorata sanitary charges and the arrears if any.  The opposite parties have written a letter dated: 14.05.2010, received by her on 21.05.2010 stating that ½ dia domestic water supply and sanitary connection to her premises has been approved and she has to pay Rs.1,14,192/-.  It was shocking and surprising to her.  Another letter was received on 15.02.2011 demanding payment of Rs.1,36,700/-.  The opposite parties have cited that the letter dated: 19.05.2010; wherein the complainant never requested any residential or domestic water connection.  Hence the demand of the opposite parties is illegal.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

The complainant is not a consumer.  There is no deficiency in service.  The opposite parties are guided by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act 1964 and Bangalore Sewerage Regulations 1974.  The complainant had applied for supply of UGD connection through BWSSB licensed plumber.  Accordingly the opposite party had issued a demand on 03.09.2004 demanding Rs.1,02,500/- on prorata basis.  Subsequently the complainant made a payment of Rs.53,700/- on 21.09.2004.  Sanitary connection has not been sanctioned but part payment of prorata charges has been accepted.  The complainant has taken illegal UGD connection, without payment of balance of prorata charges.  The opposite parties reserves rights to disconnect the UGD connection and also prosecute her for the offence.  She has converted the premises from residential to commercial.  After payment of the entire prorata charges the competent authority will consider the application of the complainant for sanction of water supply and sanitary connection.  Since then the application of the complainant remains in complete.  All the illegal sanitary connection does not bear R.R. Number.  Hence the complaint be dismissed.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and the opposite parties have also filed a Memo.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A)        :           In the Negative.

Point (B)        :           As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents it is admitted that the complainant is the owner of premises No.1106, Sector-1, HSR Layout, Bangalore.  She has sought water connection as well as UGD connection i..e, sanitary connection from opposite parties.  To that the opposite parties have written to the complainant on 03.09.2004 stating that the complainant has to pay Rs.1,02,500/- on prorata basis for water supply and sanitary connection.  As the complainant did not require any water connection to her premises she has written to the opposite parties on 15.09.2004 stating that she does not require the water connection, she wants only UGD connection i.e., sanitary connection, and she may be permitted to pay only prorata charges of sanitary connection.  Accordingly she had sent a D.D. for Rs.53,700/- as demanded by the opposite parties on 21.09.2004 which was accepted by the opposite parties and had issued the receipt dated: 24.09.2004 in No.09653.

7.       Subsequently on 19.05.2010 the complainant has written to the opposite parties thus:-

“I Dr. M. Kala (owner) request you to advice and take necessary action against your staff for entering into our premises without any BWSSB order nor any intimation to us, but they are entering the premises and blocking the chamber line.

          Please enquire who had given the permission to HSR BWSSB staff to enter in to the premises to do all these illegal activities without our knowledge and intimation, repeatedly, also blackmailing and threatening saying that we have taken illegal sanitary connection were as a receipt copy is enclosed for sanitary charges paid.

          Hence further without any BWSSB written orders, strictly advise your staff not to do such illegal activity and please advise immediately to clean the chamber line for health grounds, which otherwise would cause multiple diseases on humanity grounds, kindly oblige and do the necessary immediately.”

That is to say the staff of the opposite parties entered into the premises of the complainant without any order and blocked the chamber line and the said staff had stated to the complainant that she had taken illegal connection.  As the complainant wanted only the sanitary connection she has paid that amount on prorata basis it was accepted by the opposite parties and that sanitary connection only has been given by the opposite parties.  She has never admitted that she has taken an illegal connection.  From 2004 to 2010 how the opposite parties kept its fingers crossed?  There is no answer.

8.       Further on 20.05.2010 the complainant has written a letter which reads thus:-

“I Dr. M. Kala owner of 1106, HSR I Sector, Bangalore.  I have paid Rs.53,700/- towards sanitary charges as per the Department sanctioned order.  Now I have course to know that, I have to pay some arrears towards sanitary charges, I hereby I agree to pay the arrears of sanitary charges immediately as I have been informed by the Department.  I request you sir to kindly clear the sanitary blocked immediately, which would otherwise lead to infectious diseases to people living here as the whole house is foul smelling and stink with the sanitary blockage.

Note: Sir, I have not availed water connection though it has been sanctioned, this is for your kind information.”

That means the complainant had paid the sanitary charges on prorata bases as sanctioned by the Department and she has been informed that she has to pay the same towards sanitary charges.  She is agreeable to pay the sanitary charges.  But the opposite party has to collect the sanitary charges on domestic basis which they have not done for the past six years.  Hence it is deficiency in service.

9.       Further the opposite parties have written to the complainant on 14.05.2010 and on 15.02.2011 demanding her to pay the water charges and sanitary charges, inspection charges, etc., which is impermissible in law as the complainant has not sought the water connection to her premises; how can the opposite parties claim any amount towards water charges?  How can the opposite parties claim any other amount?  How can the opposite parties say that it is not a residential premises but a non-residential premises?  There are no material for that.

10.     If the opposite party had not claimed sanitary charges from 2004 to 2010 it is their mistake.  However the complainant is agreeable to pay the sanitary charges of residential premises.  The opposite party must thank itself in this regard.

11.     As the complainant has paid money towards sanitary charges she is a consumer, the opposite party impliedly has sanctioned the sanitary connection and is now trying to block it in the year 2010 which amounts to deficiency in service.  The opposite party threatened the complainant of dis-connection of the sanitary connection and prosecution.  It is nothing but an unfair trade practice.

12.     Hence under these circumstances if we direct the opposite parties to calculate and collect from the complainant the sanitary charges with respect to her premises from 21.09.2004 as a residential premises we think that will meet the ends of justice.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to collect sanitary charges as applicable to the residential premises No.1106, Sector-1, HSR Layout, Bangalore, from 21.09.2004 onwards and collect it from the complainant and the complainant is directed to pay the said amount as demanded by the opposite party.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
4. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 13^th Day of May 2011)

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                               PRESIDENT